Quote:Original post by capn_midnight

Quote:Original post by Nemesis2k2
Ok, so ideologically, you primarily approve of general availability of weaponry to support self-reliance and personal responsibility for one's safety. Let me ask you a hypothetical question:

If it was an absolute certanty that bringing in gun control would result in a significant reduction in murder rates per year in the US, would you still oppose this legislation?

I've already stated that this isn't just about murder rates. The need for a gun is proportional to the danger or death from guns. If ever the citizens decided to organize an armed uprising, the death-rate from guns would sky-rocket.

Your question implies that you think the majority of deaths from guns are murders committed with legally owned weapons. This brings up an important point, finding the motive behind gun violence. What about murders that take place over drug-gang turf-wars? If we did a better job in enforcing our current drug laws, then there would be a significant effect on the gun violence rate in America today.

....

You didn't actually answer my question.

If it was an absolute certanty that stricter gun control would result in a significant reduction in murder rater per year in the US, that's less people being killed each year in the US by other people, would you still oppose gun control?

I'm a dog. I have always been a dog, and let me tell you; the stench is becoming unbearable.
Lurking around LessBread and Michaelson I will cross my fingers for you guys and pray that you manage to smoke this scorpion out of the closet.

First, I'll agree with previous posters who said this is a reactionary debate, and as such everybody should try to distance themselves from the emotional impact of the recent tragedy to discuss the issue in an objective fashion.




Now, I'd like to address the "2nd Amendment is outdated" idea.

Of interest here is the 1939 United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, in which the court's opinion indicated that the Second Amendment specifically protects military assault weapons; this argument was used to rule against Miller, who was in trouble for having a sawed-off shotgun, the shotgun being deemed not useful enough in military application to be protected. (Of course, short-barrelled shotguns are and were used in the military, though the Supreme Court was apparently unaware of this.)

Then there's a 2004 memorandum from the Department of Justice that affirms an interpretation of the Second Amendment conferring the right to bear arms to citizens individually, and not as a collective or in terms of service in a militia or the National Guard. Specifically, it argues that the prefatory clause of the amendment ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State") cannot be read to construe any restriction whatsoever on the operative clause ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). This memorandum, of course, has no actual legal weight, but I believe its arguments are sound and damning.

Finally, if that weren't enough, there's 10 U.S.C. 311, which defines the militia of the United States of America as consisting of, not only the National Guard, but every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45. That is, if you're a male living in the United States of America, there's a pretty good chance you're already a member of the militia.



Now, for the part that's just my personal opinion, and to respond to a few specific comments:



I think that handguns should be, in general, more tightly regulated than they are now. I believe very strongly that every law-abiding citizen should be able to obtain a handgun, and a license to carry it in public, provided they pass background checks and rigorous training in firearms safety, judgement, and unarmed self-defense. As it is, there are some states where you don't even have to attend a cheap safety seminar to obtain a CCW permit, which strikes me as a little crazy. CCW holders should represent absolutely the highest caliber of responsible armed citizens.


Handguns are used in by far the vast majority of gun crimes. They are also, by the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution and the later interpretation of the Supreme Court, afforded the least protection under the Second Amendment, so I have no problem regulating them in this fashion.


LessBread, I've found that I agree with you on most issues, but definitely not this one. To give a slightly facetious response to your thread title: "How Many More People Must Die In Drunk Driving Accidents Before The United States Gets Real About Alcohol Control?" Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it should be illegal.


I have been personally present at two on-campus shootings - one at a community college I was attending, and one more recently here at the University of Washington. I was walking past the architecture building on my way to work around the time the shooting took place. Both these events made me feel a bit nervous - I became very aware of the possibility that someone with a gun might on some random day decide to snuff out my life. However, I still believe the right to bear arms is more important than my personal sense of risk.


I agree that tragedies like this one are terrible, but I do not believe they merit reactionary measures, except, as I noted above, to the extent that I believe handguns should be more regulated. However, I believe that in order to do anything about our country's serious problem with violence, we're going to have to address much more than handguns - the problem is cultural, and focusing on guns as a scapegoat is just so much sticking of heads in the sand.

Quote:Original post by Nemesis2k2
Ok, so ideologically, you primarily approve of general availability of weaponry to support self-reliance and personal responsibility for one's safety. Let me ask you a hypothetical question:

If it was an absolute certanty that bringing in gun control would result in a significant reduction in murder rates per year in the US, would you still oppose this legislation?

Depends what you mean by "gun control". If you mean "more sensible restrictions and better enforcement regarding handguns", then I would support it. If you meant "banning handguns or banning / further regulating assault weapons", I would oppose it.

Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
Also I love the whole "we need guns so that the government doesn't take away our rights!"

A) first of all, you already let them do that by supporting your favourite monkey and his PATRIOT Act, illegal wiretaps, etc, etc.
B) Yeah, have fun trying to stand up against an M1A1 Abrams tank with that 9mm.
C) Or an A-10, F-22, B-2, etc. Fuck we probably couldn't even stand up against a B-52. I'd love to see you try to get your hands on an SAM and claim it's an essential liberty granted under the 2nd ammendment.

Well, look what all our high-tech killing equipment is amounting to in Iraq. Make no mistake: if another revolution were to occur in this country, it would be horribly bloody. No sane person wants that to happen, but the Second Amendment is there to provide for that most dire of last-ditch measures.

With regard to your point (A), I agree that way too many Americans are ignoring the safeguards against tyranny that were built into our system of government. If they can't even be bothered to vote responsibly, they'll certainly be too lazy to revolt. That's why I also support greater civic education - that, I think, should be a higher priority than ensuring gun rights, though I still believe that gun rights are also important.

Quote:Original post by Promit
For the record, I just want to say that I'm feeling thoroughly vindicated about strong-arming this topic out of the VA Tech thread.

I'll say! Definitely a good call. [smile]



One brief question: At least one person expressed the opinion that large weapons like .50 caliber rifles should be illegal. Why? To my knowledge, a .50 caliber rifle has never been used in any crime in the U.S., and with good reason: they're huge, heavy, and cumbersome to reload. On the other hand, they're a lot of fun to shoot. [smile]



And, just as a final remark, though I very strongly support the Second Amendment, I think the NRA are a bunch of nutbags. [grin]

Guns to the civilians for defense against criminals, governemt (and possibly overthrow) and police, I hear. Wouldn't that be the direction back to anarchism?

Original source of the illegal guns are from stolen legal guns and smuggling, am I correct? Therefore one should focus on them.

I find it absurd in modern country that there would be need to be prepared to overthrow government by firearms. Doubt it would be even possible. You all have rights to vote I belive.

And about police using excessive power. As someone said #1 keep yourself out of danger, and #2 serve and protect citizens. In european countries, police has no reason to excpect anyone carrying any kind of (offensive) weapons. I can see, in US, the threat of civilians (or possible criminals) packing could cause more stress and overreactions.

Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage

Quote:Original post by ZQJ
While it's true that if guns weren't available people would certainly still be murdered, you can't kill all that many people with a knife.

Treating the symptoms. Taking away weapons so psychos can only kill a half-dozen innocent victims instead of thirty implicitly accepts such killing sprees as routine and inevitable events in the course of a civilized nation's history. We need to focus on the fact that this conflict reached a point where "kill as many as I can" became the shooter's objective. If he'd used an axe, and only killed three people, would this event have been a victory for law and order? Is that how justice and freedom are measured?

True, the "kill as many as I can" objective is the main problem to be solved. But there is a huge difference between 3 and 30 casualties. In Finland at least, some student killing 3 with an axe (I doubt shooting would happen) would be major headline and be talked for months. Not mainly how it was done, but why.

Besides hunting, sharp shooting and military, I see no use for guns.

Quote:Original post by Ftn
Besides hunting, sharp shooting and military, I see no use for guns.

Home defense. I hope to be getting a Ruger .40 pistol (the clips are interchangeable with their .40 carbine) within the next year for this reason as well as going to the gun range. Chances are (and I strongly hope) that I'd never have to use it outside of the gun range, but I'd much rather have it and not need it then the other way around and I seriously don't want to have to wait for police response time if anything like that ever was to happen within my home.




On top of that I've got 2 guns that are pretty much only good for the target range or hunting varmints. A .22 long rifle and a Mossberg bolt action 410.

Quote:Depends what you mean by "gun control". If you mean "more sensible restrictions and better enforcement regarding handguns", then I would support it. If you meant "banning handguns or banning / further regulating assault weapons", I would oppose it.

Gun control does not have to mean an outright ban on any class of weapon, but it must at least mean that an individual must:
-Demonstrate a clear need for a firearm
-Be trained in safety and handling procedures
-Be required to store their weapon in a highly secure fashion when it is not on their person (IE, in a safe)

I would also definitey attach an additonal condition that there be some form of ongoing evaluation, IE, there are some steps the owner of a gun must be forced to repeat every year for example, in which they must again have to justify/qualify for the continued ownership of a gun. The tighter and more cumbersome these steps are, the more effective they are.

It is important to note that gun control can and does vary to suit the social and cultural environment of the country it is applied in. One country might choose to ban all semi-automatic and automatic weapons, while another might choose make all of them available, but add some additional steps owners of automatic weaponry have to take (IE, physical inspection of the weapon storage arrangements by an independent and qualified inspector to ensure they meet regulations, prior to a purchase being approved). One country might choose not to allow people to obtain firearms justified simply as being for self-defence, while others might allow it. There can be a lot of flexibility in what is and isn't allowed, and ultimately, nothing has to be outright banned if the community decides they don't what them to be.

The debate shouldn't be about "Should the US have gun control?". Every country should have gun control. The debate should be about how gun control should be applied in the US. In any other country, I get the feeling that would be obvious, but in the US you can't even talk about giving gun owners a form to fill out without someone screaming about their "right to bear arms".

The purpose of gun control is to greatly reduce the number of guns within the community. I doubt the majority of the gun owners in the US could claim a legitimate reason for their gun other than self-defence. Note that I'm not saying this shouldn't be considered a valid justification for gun ownership. If a person feels that exposed without a gun, there doesn't have to be any reason why they can't keep it, they'll just have to go through the ongoing evaluation and renewal procedure. If they reach a point where they feel it's too much of a hassle, they obviously don't feel in too much danger. For people with a legitimate use for a gun in their everyday life, or who have a keen interest in gun collecting or target shooting, or even people who would feel in mortal danger without a gun, the minor inconvenience of having to jump through a few hoops each year would seem minor by comparison to not having a gun.


As for the enforcement, that's a requirement in order for any law to be effective. I was seriously worried by a previous poster talking about people buying guns at Walmart without even showing the basic documentation they are required by law to provide when purchasing a gun, without any apparent action being taken against the establishment. There should be a fine of several hundred thousand against Walmart for each offence, and if it is a recurring problem, Walmart should have their license to sell firearms revoked nationally until they can assure adequate training for their staff and full compliance to the firearms laws.


As a sidenote, am I the only one who finds the idea of a firearms section in a convenience store scary? I'd think it was a joke if I didn't know it actually existed. I doubt there are many countries other than the US in which you can buy a gun in anything but a dedicated store.

Quote:Original post by SticksandStones
1) You shoot someone on accident that you didn't mean to shoot, thinking they were an intruder.

Yes, if I tell them to freeze and they point a cell phone or something at me in the dark they are probably going to get shot.

Quote:2) They are armed as well, see your gun, and shoot you first (since you were probably just woken up).

Have you never been woken up by a suspicious sound at night? I wake up pretty much completely alert. I wouldn't be stumbling around groggily in the night with gun in hand. If it comes to the point where I'm woken up by something like that, I don't think they'll get the jump on me that easily, especially considering I know my home better then they do.

Quote:3) They break in unarmed, find your gun before you, and shoot you with it (unless it's unarmed, in which case it's useless for home defense).

Yeah, maybe if I leave it laying on a counter for them. The pistol, if/when I get it will be stored in a small keypad or fingerprint operated safe (bolted to the floor). They are not going to be able to get to it before I do.

If you're happy to hide in your room while someone lurks around your house that's completely your choice. If you want to chase after a potentially armed intruder with a baseball bat then go ahead. I want the advantage to be on my side, not theirs.

Quote:Original post by Nemesis2k2
As for the enforcement, that's a requirement in order for any law to be effective. I was seriously worried by a previous poster talking about people buying guns at Walmart without even showing the basic documentation they are required by law to provide when purchasing a gun, without any apparent action being taken against the establishment.

I believe he was talking about purchasing ammo from walmart. The identification required to purchase ammo varies by state. I don't think there are any restrictions other then age where I live.

Quote:As a sidenote, am I the only one who finds the idea of a firearms section in a convenience store scary? I'd think it was a joke if I didn't know it actually existed.

You can buy hunting weapons at walmart. They don't sell any handguns. I can't image they sell very many though. There usually isn't even anyone in that section when I'm there.